Chemical Bonding and Nomenclature Chemical Bonding and Nomenclature.
CIRCTER Circular Economy and Territorial Consequences · 2019. 10. 30. · NACE Nomenclature of...
Transcript of CIRCTER Circular Economy and Territorial Consequences · 2019. 10. 30. · NACE Nomenclature of...
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 i
CIRCTER – Circular Economy and Territorial Consequences
Applied Research
Final Report
Annex 10
Measuring urban circularity based on a
territorial perspective
Version 10/10/2019
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 ii
Final Report
This applied research activity is conducted within the framework of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation
Programme, partly financed by the European Regional Development Fund.
The ESPON EGTC is the Single Beneficiary of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme. The
Single Operation within the programme is implemented by the ESPON EGTC and co-financed by
the European Regional Development Fund, the EU Member States and the Partner States, Ice-
land, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
This delivery does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the members of the ESPON 2020 Monitor-
ing Committee.
Authors
Henning Wilts, Sören Steger, Wuppertal Institute (Germany)
Advisory Group
Project Support Team: Paolo Angelini, Ministry of Environment (Italy), Sophie De Mulder, RWO
Flemish government (Belgium), Maarten Piek, Ministry of Environment (Netherlands).
ESPON EGTC: Marjan van Herwijnen (Project Expert), Akos Szabo (Financial Expert)
Acknowledgements
The project team wants to express its gratitude to the EU Urban Agenda Partnership on Circular
Economy for their interest and support for the completion of this research. We hope that this work
could make a small contribution to the strategic priorities of the Partnership, remarkably to en-
hance the knowledge base on urban circularity indicators.
Information on ESPON and its projects can be found on www.espon.eu.
The web site provides the possibility to download and examine the most recent documents pro-
duced by finalised and ongoing ESPON projects.
This delivery exists only in an electronic version.
© ESPON, 2019
Printing, reproduction or quotation is authorised provided the source is acknowledged and a copy
is forwarded to the ESPON EGTC in Luxembourg.
Contact: [email protected]
ISBN: 978-99959-55-70-0
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 iii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Conceptual models of the CE ............................................................................................ 2
2.1. Necessity of an explicit conceptional understanding of CE ......................................... 2 2.2. Objectives of a circular economy ................................................................................. 4 2.3. Spatial perspective ....................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Strengths/ weaknesses of different indicator frameworks for implementation on city
level .............................................................................................................................. 9 3. Governance indicators – the transformation process towards CE ................................... 11
3.1. Indicators on pressures vs responses........................................................................ 11 3.2. Identification of relevant CE governance indicators ................................................... 13 3.3. Discussion of specific indicators ................................................................................ 15
3.3.1. Awareness raising for CE transformations .......................................................... 15 3.3.2. Circular economy on company level ................................................................... 17 3.3.3. Extending the useful life of products ................................................................... 19 3.3.4. Prevention of food waste..................................................................................... 21 3.3.5. Public Procurement ............................................................................................. 22
4. Data availability of comprehensive CE indicators ............................................................ 25 5. Territorial specificities ....................................................................................................... 28 6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 31 7. References ....................................................................................................................... 32
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 iv
Abbreviations
B2B business-to-business B2C Business to Consumer C2C Consumer to Consumer CBM Circular Business Model CDC Caisse des dépôts et consignations CE Circular Economy CEAP Circular Economy Action Plan CER European Remanufacturing Council CLD Causal Loop Diagram DE Domestic Extraction DMC Domestic Material Consumption DMI Direct Material Input EC European Commission EEA European Environmental Agency EMAS European Monitoring and Audit Scheme EMF Ellen MacArthur Foundation EPR Extended Producer Responsibility ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESPON European Territorial Observatory Network EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GPP Green Public Procurement GWR Geographically Weighted Regression JRC Joint Research Centre IS Industrial Symbiosis LMM Last Minute Market MBT Mechanical-Biological Treatment MFA Material Flow Analysis MS Member States MSW Municipal Solid Waste NACE Nomenclature of Economic Activities NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics OLS Ordinary Least Squares/Linear Regression OVAM Public Waste Agency of Flanders P2B Peer-to-business P2P Peer-to-peer PPP Purchasing Power Parity RMC Raw Material Consumption RMI Raw Material Input ResCoM Resource Conservative Manufacturing SME Small and Medium Enterprises RIS3 Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation ToR Terms of Reference WEEE Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 1
1. Introduction
The CIRCTER project on behalf of ESPON analysed the territorial dimension of transfor-
mations towards a circular economy: The European regions (here analysed on a NUTS2 lev-
el) clearly have very different potentials as well as starting points for increasing the circularity
of material flows due to e.g. the share of industrial activities or the economic well-being
measured in GDP per capita. Within the project specific indicators have been developed that
combine resource consumption and waste management and illustrate the differences on a
regional level. These maps provide valuable insights for the development of tailor-made CE
policies.
In cooperation with the Urban Agenda for the EU and the Partnership on Circular Economy1 it
has been discussed to analyse the specific contributions of this work for circular economy
indicators at city-level: Cities will clearly have to play a crucial role in supporting the circular
economy – at the same time e.g. the European Commission´s Circular Economy Monitoring
Framework focuses on indicators that pose severe challenges for monitoring trends and de-
velopments at city-level.
Against this background, this report aims to
1) establish an analytical framework of city-level Circular Economy indicators that high-
lights a basis for a hierarchy of indicators based on an analysis of the links between
objectives and indicators;
2) provide suggestions on possible governance indicators that go beyond status quo
and waste based figures and focus on meaningful good governance;
3) highlight the territorial specificities that need to be considered when designing indica-
tor systems on Circular Economy, e.g. with regard to large and small cities, remote
and close cities, richer and poorer cities;
4) discuss considerations on data availability for specific CE indicators at city level;
1https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/urban_agenda_partnership_on_circular_economy.pdf
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 2
2. Conceptual models of the CE
2.1. Necessity of an explicit conceptional understanding of CE
Despite the growing academic literature on the circular economy, the theoretical foundations
for a shared ground of knowledge or a set conceptional model have not been established yet
(see e.g. Kalmykova et al., 2018; Prendeville et al., 2018). It is generally accepted that this
area of research is still in a consolidation phase in terms of definition, boundaries, principles
and associated practices (Korhonen et al., 2018b, Merli et al., 2018). This also holds for the
understanding of how complex socio-economic systems and sub-systems may affect and be
affected by the so-called ‘circular-economy transitions’ (Korhonen et al., 2018a). A recent
publication highlighted that in the scientific literature alone more than 100 definitions of a cir-
cular economy can be differentiated.
It is important to take into account that this broad variety of definitions – from very academic,
complex models to often simple and pragmatic visualisations – is linked to an often very di-
verging understanding of the objectives of becoming circular. Against that background, meas-
uring progress towards circularity requires as a crucial first step an explicit understanding of
the objectives and the rationality of a circular economy – otherwise the development of indica-
tors as well as monitoring these indicators might completely overlook the actual relevant
trends and developments. The overview on existing indicator frameworks by Kirchherr, 2017
very clearly highlighted that the robustness or accuracy of specific indicators can only be as-
sessed with a clear conceptional understanding of a circular economy and its objectives that
also allows to develop a specific hierarchy of targets and indicators, e.g. in the case of trade-
offs. The aspired transformation of our patterns of consumption and productions will require a
complex systemic change that will have to take into account all sorts of intended or un-
inteded side effects, variables and causal links as illustrated in the causal loop diagram2 in
figure 1.
2 The CLD for Maribor shows for the problem of increasing amounts of landfill waste (red) which counteracting activi-
ties (orange) are associated with which interlinkages. The objective is to reduce the amount of waste landfilled, e.g.
by creating a recycling infrastructure, to eliminate the prospect of waste incineration as well as avoid the expansion of
waste landfill. This is implemented in conjunction with training for public servants to ensure the implementation of
waste sorting. These activities introduce four balancing loops in the system (B1, B2, B3 and B4), which limits the
growth of landfilled waste. At the same time, these interventions would create new opportunities which could lead to
increasing economic growth and resource consumption (R1 and R2), and hence increasing generation of waste (R3).
Emphasis is also put on material efficiency in industrial processes and on awareness raising for behavioral change at
the household level. This complementary intervention adds a fifth balancing loop (B5), which would reduce waste
generation. Overall, the strategy of Maribor practically combines efforts on the supply side (e.g. sorting and recycling)
with interventions that reduce the generation of waste for long-term sustainability (Source: ESPON 2019)
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 3
Figure 1: Causal loop diagram for the circular economy and its interlinkages, case study for reducing waste landfill in Maribor
Source: ESPON, 2019
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 4
2.2. Objectives of a circular economy
Following the different definitions and conceptionalisations of a circular economy, different
analytical categories have to be differentiated in order to gain an explicit understanding of the
objectives to be achieved in a more circular – or if that´s even possible – completely circular
economy.
Strategic objectives highlighted in analysed practices and concepts of circular economy do
not always include the three environmental, economic and social objectives. The starting
point for most definitions is an environmental rationale to protect natural resources, to avoid
environmental burdens to ecosystems, species and thus indirectly also to avoid negative im-
pacts on human health. Most concepts focus on the output-side of the socio-economic me-
tabolism – the waste streams and their disposal and recovery - as well as on the input-side,
measured e.g. by material-flow based indicators like domestic material consumption. Increas-
ingly also the potential contributions to climate change mitigation by circularity are seen as a
strategic objective (Material Economics, n.d.).
Despite this focus on the environmental benefits of the circular economy, it should be noted
that e.g. the Circular Economy Action Plan by the European Commission has been initiated
primarily by DG Grow and has a clear focus on the cost savings, job creation and competi-
tiveness potentials (European Commission, 2015):
“The circular economy will boost the EU's competitiveness by protecting businesses against
scarcity of resources and volatile prices, helping to create new business opportunities and
innovative, more efficient ways of producing and consuming. It will create local jobs at all
skills levels and opportunities for social integration and cohesion. At the same time, it will
save energy and help avoid the irreversible damages caused by using up resources at a rate
that exceeds the Earth's capacity to renew them in terms of climate and biodiversity, air, soil
and water pollution. (...) Action on the circular economy therefore ties in closely with key EU
priorities, including jobs and growth, the investment agenda, climate and energy, the social
agenda and industrial innovation, and with global efforts on sustainable development.“
Obviously environmental objectives on the one hand and economic objectives on the other
can be very well aligned – this is the unique opportunity of the circular economy as e.g. illus-
trated by the assessments published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). Nevertheless it has to be stated that these co-synergies are not an auto-
matic and necessary must – but have to be ensured by an appropriate regulatory framework!
Trade-offs can be imaginable on many different levels, e.g. lowering the technical thresholds
for pollutants in recycled plastics could definitely lead to new business opportunities but at the
same time pose severe risks to the health of consumers. From a more conceptional point of
view the circular economy often has a clear emphasis on the consistency of our socio-
economic metabolism – neglecting the need for an absolute reduction of the natural resource
requirements of our industry (UNEP, 2017). Looking at the mostly positively connoted image
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 5
of the “circle”, its overall long-term sustainability will depend not only on its closure but also on
the total amount of resources that will be necessary to keep it floating. CE indicator frame-
works from the global down to the urban level will have to ensure that these aspects are com-
prehensively covered, e.g. by not only focussing on recycling rates and neglecting waste
generation.
Other important analytical dimensions e.g. include the temporal perspective with a majority of
indicators focussing on current data, looking at improvements of the status quo compared to
the past. A very different set of indicators in contrast has a focus on future developments,
measuring e.g. eco-innovation potentials in terms of R&D expenditures or based on patent
analysis (O’Brien et al., 2018).
2.3. Spatial perspective
Starting point of the CIRCTER project has been the specific challenges of a spatial perspec-
tive on the circular economy: the regulation of local circuits and the relational logic of geo-
graphical norms and scales as factors for circular economy development remain very little
discussed for the moment (Barles, 2009). In our view, three key analytical challenges need to
be sorted out to characterise the circular economy under a territorial perspective, namely: (1)
the scales of operation of circular economic systems and sub-systems; (2) the territorial fac-
tors that may affect the development of closed material and energy loops, and; (3) the territo-
rial outcomes that might derive from the penetration of Circular Business Models (CBM) at
various levels.
Regarding the first challenge, we argue that the circular economy can be characterised and
studied at different scales depending on the specific sub-systems that are considered, which
are also tightly linked with the notion of ‘organizational width’ introduced above. The circular
economy clearly has a multi-scalar expression that should be analysed beyond the borders of
single companies, cities, regions or countries. At a national and global levels (macro scale),
this can be done by e.g. focusing on the geographies of international supply chains and glob-
alised waste flows (Clapp, 2001, Velis, 2015). Some argue that intermediate regional areas
(meso-scale) may be the most suitable level for closing material loops and creating sustaina-
ble industrial ecosystems (Sterr & Ott, 2004). But the circular economy also has an expres-
sion at the urban and local levels (micro-scale). Here is where the circular economy can be
materialised in very tangible initiatives, for instance in the form of local food systems or closed
circuits of secondary materials of the lowest value (e.g. demolition materials or organic
wastes). In any case, the debate on the territorial definition of a circular economy goes well
beyond the delimitation of scales of operation based on administrative-unit boundaries. In
fact, the identification of the scales of operation ultimately links to the definition of appropriate
system boundaries for the characterization of circular economies at various territorial levels.
These somehow theoretical considerations become very concrete when it comes to the as-
sessment of imports and exports of materials as well as waste streams: The circular economy
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 6
is often conceptionalised as a self-sufficiency approach where the reliance on raw material
imports is reduced, as e.g. illustrated in the following schematic CE figure by the European
Environment Agency that explicitly states that for a circular system material imports and
waste exports should be minimized.
Figure 2: The Concept of Circular Economy
Source: Wilts & Berg, 2017
From an environmental point of view such an approach aims of course to reduce a simple
shifting of burdens to other regions of the world e.g. by disposing residual waste in countries
with lower environmental standards as highlighted by the Chinese ban of low quality waste
imports.
At the same time the strict self-sufficiency approach also bears the risk of neglecting relevant
territorial factors as outlined above: If one region has established high quality waste treatment
infrastructures – why shouldn´t it import waste from regions without appropriate technology
where waste would e.g. just landfilled.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 7
The second important aspect is of course the spatial scale chosen for the closing of material
cycles: The assessment of recovery rates for example for municipal solid waste would be
completely different if calculated on a city level, on an average national level or in contrast on
a city quarter level – and despite the completely different results for the same indicator just on
different spatial levels, the environmental performance of the system could be exactly the
same.
Taking these different aspects and issues into account, the following figure shows an analyti-
cal CE framework that goes beyond the rather static perspective of flows but focuses on cir-
cular activities, business models and innovations instead.
Figure 3: Framework for monitoring and evaluation of product eco-innovation for the circular economy
Source: O’Brien et al., 2018,p. 20
The framework encompasses three main areas (business model, product design/production
and use/post-consumption) and associated indicators that effect the circularity of the system:
• Business model: factors applied in business models to ensure the full circularity po-tential of a product e.g. establishment of take back schemes, application of extended producer responsibility (EPR), integration of circular product design and production into business models, etc.
• Product design and production: product design and manufacturing elements that in-fluence the circularity potential of the product from a technical perspective e.g. dura-
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 8
bility, reparability, recyclability, type of materials used, efficient production processes in terms of less resources used and waste produced, etc.
• Use and post-consumption: consumer behaviour elements that contribute towards close-looped product cycles e.g. innovative consumption models, longer use of prod-ucts, recycling, etc.
From a specific urban perspective, the following table shows possible indicators for such a
framework as well as a first assessment how i) territorial considerations, ii) data availability
and iii) monitoring on city level can be considered. These aspects will be analysed in more
details in Chapter 3 but obviously especially the focus on the circularity of products is a spe-
cific challenge for indicators at city-level.
Table 1: Indicators related to the circular economy from a materials perspective
Phase Product circularity as-
pects Possible indicators
Appropriate-ness for an analysis on
city-level
Bu
sin
es
s m
od
el
Shift of business strategies towards circular concepts
• Number of product-service systems e.g. remanufacture and service-based offers such as offering consumers take-back schemes for products
• Number of EMAS certified companies
• Uptake of EPR schemes
• Training programmes for employees and suppliers
• Transparency in product information
• Other trends on the adaptation of business models to integrate product eco-innovation and circular economy principles
+
Pro
du
ct
de
sig
n a
nd
pro
du
cti
on
Products designed to last longer; products designed for disassembly
• Product environmental footprint (PEF)
• EU Eco-design related data
• Evidence that businesses are implementing practices to improve product durability
-
Recycled materials includ-ed in product design; prod-ucts designed to be recy-cled
• Percentage of recycled content in products
• Product environmental footprint (PEF)
• EU Eco-design related data
-
Lower volume and number of environmentally hazard-ous substances used in production
• Amount of hazardous waste generated and treated
-
Less waste in production being generated
• Waste generation
• Recycling statistics, decoupling and waste minimization statistics
0
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 9
Source: O’Brien et al., 2018, p. 21
2.4. Strengths/ weaknesses of different indicator frameworks for im-
plementation on city level
Taking into account the different strategic objectives as well as spatial perspectives on circu-
lar economy does of course not lead to a clearly defined set of indicators at city level. The
selection of indicators has obviously a political component, e.g. if monitoring reports on indi-
cators can be used to steer the public discourse as well as the policy agenda.
Nevertheless the analysis might help to identify specific strengths and weaknesses that
should be considered during the selection process. The following highlights some of these
characteristics taking the exemplary analytical frameworks outlined in the issue paper by
Ecorys:
1. Indicators on recycling
All indicators on recycling are highly dominated by the spatial distribution of recycling
plants; interpretation of such indicators should always ask about the fate of waste
streams from a specific city: how much of that waste has actually been recycled?
2. Indicators on material consumption
Material consumption is closely linked to economic well-being; all input-oriented indi-
cators (as well as e.g. indicators for C&D waste generation) are highly influenced by
Fewer materials used in production; valorisation and use of secondary materials
• Materials / resource efficiency indicators
• Industrial symbiosis indicators +
Use a
nd
po
st-
co
nsu
mp
tio
n
Alternatives to the pur-chase of new products
• Replacement rates of products
• Average lifetime of products (based on real use)
• Re-use, leasing and repair data
- (products)/ + (reuse)
Evidence that product la-bels and other information tools influence consumer purchasing decisions
• Trends on EU Ecolabelled products and services
0
Evidence that consumers are recycling more and increasingly repairing prod-ucts
• Product take-back and repair statistics
• EU, MS level product recycling trends
• Recycling market statistics
• Statistics on household waste separation and collection
0
Other societal or consump-tion trends promote circular economy principles
• Number of sharing schemes
• Collaborative consumption statistics
+
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 10
economic growth rates rather than illustrating the effectiveness of CE policies. Never-
theless they are important for an assessment of circularity potentials.
3. Indicators on cyclical use rates/ recycled content
Compared to recycling rates, these indicators would have to take into account the
share of imported products that in most cases clearly dominate consumption patterns
in cities. They do give an impression of awareness amongst citizens and could very
well be used e.g. for green public procurement.
4. Indicators on environmental professionals/ economic relevance of green sectors etc.
These figures are often difficult to compare between cities due to different sectoral
definitions of green/ circular activities. They are correlated with waste generation and
thus with economic wellbeing. Nevertheless they provide excellent justifications for
investments in circular economy and increase whenever a city manages to climb up
the waste hierarchy (with waste recycling being much more labour intensive than e.g.
waste incineration).
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 11
3. Governance indicators – the transformation process to-
wards CE
3.1. Indicators on pressures vs responses
Looking at the broad variety of existing CE indicators and monitoring frameworks, a useful
approach for a structuring classification has been further developed by the European Envi-
ronment Agency and the OECD, the so called DPSIR framework.
The DPSIR concept is used as an approach for an integrated environmental assessment; the
focus is on the interactions between the environment and socio-economic activities through
the system analytical perspective. In a chain of causal links, a distinction is made between
driving forces (economic sectors; human actions), pressures (environmental pollution), states
(state of soil, water, air; changes in physical, biological or chemical processes), impacts (in-
fluence on ecosystems or human health) and responses (socio-political reactions). Indicators
can thus be structured in terms of ecological quality and the resulting influence of policy deci-
sions (see figure 4 below). This enables a clear differentiation of closed cycle indicators ac-
cording to their different starting points, which distinguish between driving forces, environmen-
tal impacts caused by them and their specific impacts, the state of individual environmental
media and concrete measures aimed at avoiding waste.
Figure 4: DPSIR concept for environmental assessment
Source: Own compilation based on Kristensen (2004)
A recently finalised research project on behalf of the German EPA (von Gries et al, 2017) has
highlighted that in the specific context of waste prevention in a circular economy, that there
are virtually no impact or state-related waste prevention indicators. This gap is due to struc-
tural methodological problems, as the direct relationship between waste generation and direct
environmental impacts depends on so many spatial and temporal factors that it is difficult to
map consistently. In quite clear contrast, most of the specific CE indicator sets very much
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 12
focus on the aspect of pressures like waste generation with recycling or recovery rates as a
specific type of response indicators.
Taking into account the specific challenges on the urban level, a combination of indicators
seems useful that integrate i) measuring the success of circular activities together with ii) the
level of activity and the institutional set up of achieving circularity, the governance of CE
transformations. The following will identify such indicators and discuss their appropriatness for
application on the city level.
The circular economy transition is evidently rooted in technology: due to the complexity of our
materials and products, technology is at the core of the transition, for instance when it comes
to design and recycling. Then the measurement of stocks and flows of materials at the macro
level and of product properties at the micro level can be considered. But the transition also
clearly includes socio-institutional changes in which technology is not key but rather plays a
secondary or supporting role (Potting et al., 2017). An example is the emergence of the shar-
ing economy: for this to happen the availability of mobile networks has been crucial, but mo-
bile networks have not been developed for the prime purpose of facilitating sharing, they ra-
ther have had a supporting role. Hence it is also important to have reflections of aspects be-
yond technology and material flows in the monitor, for instance the innovations in models of
product and consumption, in product design, and socio-institutional evolutions. (Alaerts et al.,
2018, p. 11)
Figure 5: Assessment framework for measuring the progress of the transition towards a circular Economy
Source: Alaerts et al., 2018, p. 11
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 13
3.2. Identification of relevant CE governance indicators
As perfectly shown by UA issue paper, there is no lack of suggested indicators, either by pub-
lic institutions like the European Commission´s CE monitoring framework, the EU member
states or actors like the OECD, proposed approaches by research institute like IVL or VITO or
industry driven initiatives like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Against this background the
following doesn´t aim to give a full picture on possible CE governance indicators but to rather
discuss strengths and weaknesses of selected indicators in order to allow an informed dis-
cussion about the development of indicators, not a simple selection.
Sources analysed for this selection inter alia include the above mentioned sources but with
the specific focus on governance especially existing CE, waste management and waste pre-
vention monitoring frameworks provided by the EU member states have been analysed (EEA,
2015 and EEA, 2017). The following table lists indicators that have been identified in these
sources that on very different levels refer to the governance of CE transformations.
Table 2: Identified CE government indicators
Green Public Procurement
Food waste prevention monitoring
Investments, eg in industrial symbiosis
Innovation/ patents
Integration of waste infrastructure planning in cities
Awareness raising – motivating stakeholders to take up CE measures
Number of pilot projects on the CE (e.g. on involving retailors)
Citizens involvement
Availability of a roadmap for resource management
Availability of innovative schemes for businesses at the city level, which are related to CE
(not just for CO2 emissions trading)
Awards for circular businesses (e.g. stamps, stickers)
Cross-learning and exchanges between cities
Selective waste collection
Number of organisations with environmental certification
Number of schools that participate in environmental education projects
Number of organisations with registered environmental management systems according to
EMAS and/or ISO 14001 CE funding Landfill tax rates, the tax levied per tonne of municipal
waste disposed in landfills Public energy technology RD&D expenditures directed at “renew-
able energy ” and “fossil fuel energy”, expressed as percentages of total public energy RD&D
Technology development: the number of inventions (simple patent families) developed by a
country’s inventors, independent of the jurisdictions where a patent application has been
registered (i.e. all known patent families worldwide are considered)
Employment and value added in selected environmental protection activities expressed as a
percentage of total; sewerage, waste management and remediation
Share of environmentally related tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of total tax reve-
nue and compared to GDP and to labour tax revenue
Number of legislative and normative barriers identified and resolved
Number of legislative and normative incentives created
Number of people trained in CE trades
Number of students trained in CE occupations
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 14
Number of pilot cases set up via calls for projects / living lab
Number of seminars organized on the CE under the PREC
Number of economic operators sensitized on CE
Budget amount allocated to calls for projects / living lab made / implemented and number
companies having benefited.
Budget amount and number of pilot public markets in CE developed in Brussels-Capital Re-
gion
Number of companies informed / aware of the opportunities of the Brussels public markets
Number of new neighbourhoods incorporating the principles of the CE
Number of enterprises receiving financial support in connection with the CE
Amount of financial aid granted to companies in connection with the CE
Number of economic operators accompanied in CE
Number of job-seekers put to work following training developed in the context of PREC
Based on this review it becomes clear that also the governance of circular economy transfor-
mations refers to a variety of specific questions that indicators aim to answer:
• How do specific activities develop in terms of number/ relevance/ participation
that aim to support CE transformations?
• Is there an identified responsibility for specific aspects of CE transformations?
• Are there established specific indicators or targets for these processes?
• Is there a defined monitoring to collect and analyse data?
• How is the process financed/ subsidised or financially supported?
• If and how are effectiveness and/ or efficiency of the process monitored?
• How is the process perceived in relevant stakeholder groups, e.g. with regard to
awareness in the public?
With these questions in mind, the following chapter aims to conceptionalize concrete CE gov-
ernance indicators that specifically refer to concrete activities (or responses in the DPSIR
terminology) with relevance for circular economy transformations at city or at least regional
level. For these indicators the general importance as well as issues of data availability and
monitoring schemes are discussed. In order to give a first impression of necessary efforts for
establishing a monitoring scheme for the indicator, necessary working days have been rough-
ly estimated – the specific efforts will clearly depend on already available information or the
size of the specific city.
The following indicators have been formulated in a way that focuses on progress towards
circularity within a specific city; they could of course also be used to monitor progress towards
circular economy for a group of cities as the Urban Partnership; using e.g. the share of cities
that formulated a dedicated urban circular economy strategy or the number of cities with a
concrete contact person for circular economy. Obviously establishing a set of indicators al-
ways has to take into account the strategic objectives: guiding developments within a city,
demonstrating progress in a cooperation or also highlighting specific challenges that would
require external interventions e.g. in form of regulatory frameworks.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 15
3.3. Discussion of specific indicators
3.3.1. Awareness raising for CE transformations
Proposed indicators
1. Number of communication measures (campaign, provision of information, events for
the public) on circular transformations and waste prevention in general (period-
related) and their reception
2. Number of other CE governance related activities by municipal public authorities
(working group, events, implementation/award of expert reports) on circular transfor-
mations or waste prevention (period-related)
3. Level of public awareness for circular economy and waste prevention and develop-
ment over time
Explanations
Initiatives to raise awareness for CE transformations might span across very different areas
such as research and development, public information and awareness-raising and general
organisation/activities. The collection of information on proposed indicators should distinguish
and describe different types of actions. For example, only those activities that actually consist
of such a campaign should be included as a campaign (in some cases, individual flyers or
individual events were also specified as a campaign in the country survey). If possible, also
data on the number of recipients or optimally evaluations of actual impacts on consumption
patterns should be included.
In addition to information campaigns, other general activities on circular economy and waste
prevention should also be included. Here, too, supplementary qualitative information is re-
quired in addition to the purely numerical value, and here too it would be useful to also list the
activities of the federal government.
During the annual European Week for Waste Reduction (EWWR)3, numerous local cam-
paigns are held on the subject of waste avoidance and waste reduction. These are registered
by various actors (authorities, associations, companies, educational institutions, private indi-
viduals, etc.) and are often supported by several actors. In all member states there are specif-
ic institutions that coordinate the EWWR and collect data on the actors involved. Due to the
diversity of the actors involved, it makes sense to evaluate only a limited part within the
framework of an indicator, e.g. public waste management companies as well as participating
public authorities and educational institutions could be evaluated.
With regard to the public level of awareness for circular economy, the questions should be
very carefully formulated in order to avoid confusions with aspects of cleanliness/ littering
3 European Week for Waste Reduction (n.d.), More information at http://www.ewwr.eu
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 16
alone. It should also be taken into account that a high level of awareness in general could be
a sign for a positive perception of the city´s activities or rather a feeling that actually more
action would be necessary.
Data collection
Indicator 1: Number of communication measures (campaign, provision of infor-
mation, events for the public) on circular transformations and waste prevention in
general (period-related) and their reception
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available?
No; clear need for additional data collection schemes e.g. via surveys. EWWR related activities as a first starting point are publicly accessible on the EWWR website.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Once the methodology of the survey has been established, a personnel expenditure of ap-prox. 10 working days must be planned for the implementation and evaluation of the survey for all indicators collected through the survey.
Are the data confidential? Individual answers yes, but the aggregated/ anonymised information for the indicator is not.
Frequency of updating: as needed
Stability of the data quality:
Stable with the same methodology; the data quality depends on whether only the "correct" activities are actually mentioned; the com-pleteness of the data must be ensured by mandatory participation in the survey.
Indicator 2: Number of other CE governance related activities (working group,
events, implementation/award of expert reports) on circular transformations or waste
prevention (period-related)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Data source are the responsible authorities, the query would have to be made specifically via a questionnaire
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Once the methodology of the survey has been established, a personnel expenditure of ap-prox. 10 working days must be planned for the implementation and evaluation of the survey for all indicators collected through the survey.
Are the data confidential? Individual answers yes, but the aggregated/ anonymised information for the indicator is not.
Frequency of updating: as needed
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 17
Stability of the data quality:
Stable with the same methodology; the data quality depends on whether only the "correct" activities are actually mentioned; the com-pleteness of the data must be ensured by mandatory participation in the survey.
Indicator 3: Level of public awareness for circular economy and waste prevention
and development over time
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No, only in limited cases
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Regular surveys on attention for environmen-tal issues or general perception of living quali-ty in cities with the general public as target audience
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Limited expenditures if relevant questions can be added to existing surveys
Are the data confidential? Yes
Frequency of updating: Annually
Stability of the data quality: Interpretation depends on specific formulation of questions
3.3.2. Circular economy on company level
Proposed indicators
4. Number of activities that support waste prevention in enterprises (e.g. information
campaign, information or advisory services, exchange of experience) (period-related)
5. Number or share of companies that have implemented an environmental manage-
ment system in specific cities (e.g. EMAS, Ökoprofit, QuB, ISO 14001 certification)
Explanations
A number of indicators can be formulated in the area of consultancy for enterprises and envi-
ronmental management systems (EMS) (e.g. number of consultations carried out, volume of
posts employed for consultations, number of specially trained consultants), but there are likely
to be problems in determining which programmes/consultations actually substantially address
the waste prevention aspect. However, a general census of the introduced relevant EMSs is
possible via the relevant organisations and can be used as a proxy indicator (the data for the
different systems should be listed separately due to their differences). In most countries only
few larger systems for EMS (like Ökoprofit, EMAS etc.) exist for which information is available
on the number of certified establishments can be used here. In addition to the purely numeri-
cal values, it is useful to describe the depth to which waste prevention plays a role in the vari-
ous systems. In addition, there are numerous other industry-specific environmental manage-
ment labels whose coverage by the indicator would, however, significantly increase the effort
involved in collecting the data. Optimally, not only the total number but also the share of com-
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 18
panies within a city that are involved in such activities should be monitored; this is neverthe-
less often challenging due to lacking differentiations between companies and production sites
in a city.
Data collection
Indicator 4: Number of activities that support activities in the field of waste preven-
tion in enterprises (e.g. information campaign, information or advisory services, ex-
change of experience) (period-related)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Data source are the responsible state and federal authorities, the query would have to be made specifically via a questionnaire.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Once the methodology of the survey has been established, a personnel expenditure of ap-prox. 10 working days must be planned for the implementation and evaluation of the survey for all indicators collected through the survey.
Are the data confidential? Individual answers yes, but the aggregated/ anonymised information for the indicator is not.
Frequency of updating: as needed
(Stability of the data quality):
Stable with the same methodology; data quali-ty depends on whether only the "correct" ac-tivities are actually mentioned; completeness of the data must be ensured by mandatory participation in the survey
Indicator 5: Number or share of companies that have implemented an environmental
manage-ment system (EMAS, Ökoprofit, QuB, ISO 14001 certification)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? The data must be requested from the respec-tive supporting organisations (partly available online, partly necessary by telephone).
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Supporting organisations of the EMA
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Low personnel expenses
Are the data confidential? No, it doesn´t
Frequency of updating: Annually
(Stability of the data quality):
Good / constant; however, in some cases (EMAS, ISO 14001) not only companies but also public authorities and associations are included (these could be deducted with a cer-tain additional effort) and some companies can be included in several systems at the same time.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 19
3.3.3. Extending the useful life of products
Proposed indicators
6. Number of visitors in reuse centres/ repair or second hand shops (period-specific)
7. Turnover of reuse centres/ repair or second hand shops (period-specific)
8. Mass and proportion of the mass of waste electrical and electronic equipment to be
prepared for reuse
Explanations
In the area of support for reuse, there are currently significant differences with regard to activi-
ties at city-level. Both the absolute mass and the share of equipment in the WEEE waste
stream can already be mapped without much additional effort on the national level – based on
data that often have to be collected at city-level. The data are available separately for 11 dif-
ferent categories of equipment, according to which differentiation could be made, but small
quantities in individual sub-indicators could indicate fluctuations that are purely random and
whose significance would be overestimated by a separate presentation. Better than present-
ing the quantity of equipment entering the preparation for re-use would be the quantity of
equipment actually available for re-use at the end of the process, but these data are not
available. It should also be considered whether a separation into private and commercial de-
vices would be possible.
Gathering data on the number of visitors in reuse/ repair centres etc requires setting up a
clear network of such facilities/ companies that identify themselves with this sector. Such pro-
cesses can be supported by setting up quality labels or even financial support by the sector –
for which in return mandatory reporting obligations are established (see e.g. in Brussels and
Flanders). Data on financial turnover are in many cases easier to obtain that data on tonnag-
es; in many countries this also hinders proper estimations of materials that are actually re-
used and standardized average weights for specific products could be helpful.
The problem here, however, is that most repairing enterprises also sell new products and the
repair services are not shown separately in turnover. This problem of demarcation also exists
in particular in cases where, for example, electronic equipment is given to the original manu-
facturer for repair. In some areas (shoemakers, tailors) there are firms that repair almost ex-
clusively, but these represent only a very small part of the repair trade as a whole and the
data therefore do not seem to be sufficient to support an indicator. A 2-level indicator could be
an option to overcome this specific challenge: The share of companies that mostly do re-
pair/reuse activities as well as the share of companies that have repair/reuse only as part of
their activitiy but that also sell new products could be used as more specific calculation meth-
od.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 20
Indicators on visitors e.g. of reuse centres could of course also be linked to indicators meas-
uring the awareness of citizens for waste prevention in general or specific waste prevention
opportunities like reuse. Indicator 3 (see Chapter 3.3.1) that would be based on survey could
be amended by specific questions on the knowledge amongst the population about the loca-
tion of second hand shops or repair services. Several cities like for example Berlin provide
guidebooks to repair shops in the different parts of the city, aiming specifically to increase the
awareness of such service offers.
Data collection
Indicator 6: Number of visitors in reuse centres/ repair or second-hand shops (peri-
od-specific)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Data source are the responsible state and federal authorities, the query would have to be made specifically via a questionnaire.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
After the initial establishment of a network of actors within the city, a personnel expenditure of approx. 5 working days must be planned for data collection from the centres.
Are the data confidential? No.
Frequency of updating: as needed
(Stability of the data quality): Yes
Indicator 7: Turnover of reuse centres/ repair or second hand shops (period-
specific)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? Yes
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Data must be reported for financial/ taxation reasons; often not directly available for other municipal actors.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
After the initial establishment of a network of actors within the city, a personnel expenditure of approx. 5 working days must be planned for data collection from the centres.
Are the data confidential? Yes
Frequency of updating: Annualy
(Stability of the data quality): Stable with the same methodology; the data quality depends on whether only the "correct" activities are actually mentioned.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 21
Indicator 8: Mass and proportion of mass of waste electrical and electronic equip-
ment sent for preparation for re-use
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? Yes, on national/ regional level; in limited cas-es also at city-level
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
Different collection schemes in place, obligato-ry reporting to Eurostat on the national level
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
No additional expenditure if the data are rec-orded again as until 2014.
Are the data confidential? No, it doesn´t
Frequency of updating: Annually
(Stability of the data quality): The data quality is limited, the data is not completely complete (cf. the explanations above in the text)
3.3.4. Prevention of food waste
Proposed indicator
9. Number of activities that have been carried out to prevent food waste (e.g. infor-
mation campaign, events, publication of recommendations, establishment of a work-
ing group, research project) (period-related)
Explanations
In the area of food waste prevention, most, but not all, cities are quite active. The proposed
indicator represents the total number of publically recorded activities in this area. It would be
useful to include and present some qualitative information on the type of activities, as well as
the activities of the federal government.
Measuring the total amount of food waste and thus monitoring food waste prevention would
definitely be preferable, such an approach would require a clear definition of food waste as
well as a regular composition analysis of all different waste streams. The European COmmis-
sion is currently working on a harmonized measurement methodology and the cities should
carefully analyse if this could be implemented also at city level.
Data collection
Indicator 9: Number of activities that have been carried out to prevent food waste
(e.g. information campaign, events, publication of recommendations, establishment
of a working group, research project) (period-related)
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 22
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
The query would have to be made specifical-ly via a questionnaire.4
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Once the methodology of the survey has been established, a personnel expenditure of approx. 10 working days must be planned for the implementation and evaluation of the survey for all indicators collected through the survey.
Are the data confidential? Individual answers yes, but the aggregat-ed/anonymised information for the indicator is not.
Frequency of updating: as needed
(Stability of the data quality):
Stable with the same methodology; the data quality depends on whether only the "cor-rect" activities are actually mentioned; the completeness of the data must be ensured by mandatory participation in the survey.
3.3.5. Public Procurement
Proposed indicator
10. Existence of concrete guidelines on public procurement in which waste prevention
and other circular economy related aspects (reuse/repair, take-back options, recycled
content) are explicitly addressed
11. Share of public procurement that chose different products/ services due to waste pre-
vention and other circular economy related aspects
Explanations
Although the European procurement regulations as well as regulations at state level provide
for an inspection obligation or target regulation for aspects such as longevity, ease of repair
and reuse in public tenders, this inspection obligation is hardly applied in practice. Some fed-
eral states have guidelines that address these aspects. Although following such guidelines is
voluntary and their mere existence therefore does not provide any information on their practi-
cal application, they do indicate a certain degree of involvement with the issue in public pro-
curement and may attract attention. For the indicator, it is necessary to define which ap-
proaches to public procurement are considered waste avoidance (e.g. procurement of used
goods, durable, repair-friendly products). In order to get an indication of the scope and depth
of the consideration of the issue, some qualitative information on the nature and scope of the
requirements/proposals should also be collected.
4 It was also proposed to use the BMEL's website https://www.lebensmittelwertschaetzen.de/aktivitaeten/ for data
collection, which lists food waste prevention activities. However, most of these activities are carried out by private
initiatives.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 23
Indicators that would monitor the actual relevance of such prevention oriented procurement
guidelines would be desirable, but extremely challenging to implement: They would require a
detailed evaluation of specific procurement processes and might in the beginning be based
on selected cases for a limited group of products with high potential for circular/ waste pre-
venting solutions.
Data collection
Indicator 10: Existence of concrete guidelines on public procurement in which the
waste prevention aspect is explicitly addressed
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
The data would have to be collected sepa-rately. The guidelines have been compiled, in Germany for example, by the Compe-tence Centre for Sustainable Procurement (Beschaffungsamt des Bundesministeriums des Innern, 2012); it would also be useful to conduct further research to find out whether other current guidelines are available.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
For the first compilation and evaluation of these guidelines, approx. 2 working days of personnel expenditure are to be taken into account, for later updates less.
Are the data confidential? No, it doesn´t
Frequency of updating: as needed
(Stability of the data quality):
Depends on whether there is a consistent understanding in the evaluation of when the waste prevention aspect is explicitly ad-dressed; this should be ensured by collect-ing qualitative information
Indicator 11: Share of public procurement that chose different products/ services
due to waste pre-vention aspects
Criteria Evaluation
Are the data "ready" available? No
Who collects the data / who is the data source?
The data would have to be collected based on an assessment of individual procurement processes. In the future such an assessment could be included as mandatory information for procurements.
Amount of material costs or personnel expenses (working days) for data:
Efforts would depend on the scope and depth of analysis, probably at least 20 days
Are the data confidential? No, it doesn´t
Frequency of updating: as needed
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 24
(Stability of the data quality): Will depend on the chosen approach; a common methodology would be preferable but to be developed.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 25
4. Data availability of comprehensive CE indicators
However, the governance indicators only address certain aspects of a circular economy. To
get a complete picture of the circularity of cities, local decision-makers need a comprehensive
picture of the input and output flows (waste and emissions) that enter and leave their urban
systems or is accumulated within the system. In 1965 Wolman coined the term Urban Me-
tabolism (UM) to describe this analogy: a city is like a living organism that absorbs material,
energy and nutrients from nature and the surrounding regions, transforms them via technical
and socio-economic processes within its city, grows and releases them again as Exports,
Emissions and Waste.
Over the last 20 years, the literature on urban metabolism has grown considerably and a re-
view of the various studies (Beloin-Saint-Pierre et al. 2017) shows that the concept of urban
metabolism can be used to calculate very different indicators. These, in turn, were developed
using different methods, data sources and differentiations.
Several UM studies only investigate individual material flows and changes in the in-use stock,
such as copper or nitrogen (Van Beers et al. 2003, Forkes 2007), others concentrate on en-
ergy flows (Haberl 2001, Fikar 2009, Krausmann 2013). Other UM studies again focus on
greenhouse gas emissions in order to make a statement on the environmental impacts of an
urban region (Hillman/Ramaswami 2010).
Some studies methodically follow the indicators of the Economy-wide MFA (EW-MFA), which
basically records all material inputs and all outputs from the spatially defined anthroposphere,
and all the different data can be combined into uniformly defined indicators. At the national
and international level, most of these EW-MFA indicators are now gathered and published by
the relevant statistical offices as official environmental data; be it direct material inputs or
emissions and waste flows as output. At the same time, these are often part of the headline
indicators that measure and evaluate progress towards sustainability or circular economy.
At the regional or local level, however, these data are not available for the formation of these
indicators. The main obstacle to collecting these indicators at sub-national levels is the diffi-
culty in capturing trade linkages on both the input and output sides. Corresponding legal regu-
lations for gathering such transport data exist only at national and European level in the form
of corresponding regulations and reporting obligations for imports and exports. However, es-
pecially in cities with hardly any significant domestic extraction, the import and export of mate-
rials, energy and goods are extremely relevant. Waste statistics are usually collected at the
recycling facility level. However, here too the incoming waste streams are only differentiated
according to nationally generated or imported quantities. There is no further subdivision of
these domestic flows into regional and municipal origins.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 26
These methodological difficulties lead to the fact that interested cities cannot collect the data
for comprehensive indicators without enormous effort, and which at the same time are con-
nectable to the indicator discussion on national or European levels (see e.g. the 10 Circular
Economy Indicators from Eurostat5). Nevertheless, there are plenty of studies which, for ex-
ample, have collected corresponding MFA input indicators for cities (in Europe, among others:
Paris: Barles 2009, Pina et al. 2015; Hamburg and Vienna: Hammer/Giljum 2006; Lisbon:
Niza et al. 2009, Rosado et al. 2013, Pina et al. 2015; Amsterdam: Voskamp et al. 2016; Ma-
drid: Sastre et al. 2015; Stockholm: Rosado et al. 2016, Kalmykova et al. 2015; Lille, Lyon,
Frankfurt, Liverpool, Manchester, Porto, Berlin: Duarte 2016). How were the indicators com-
piled in these studies? Either via very labour-intensive bottom-up calculations, or using a very
similar approach to regionalisation as in CIRCTER: National or international data were dis-
aggregated to the urban level using proxy indicators. In some cases, hybrid models were also
used, in which top-down data are combined with bottom-up data. In other cases, input-output
models were used, which allow detailed disaggregation by economic sectors and the type of
final use.
The enormous complexity in collecting these comprehensive indicators also prevents the
regular compilation of these data, so that to a large extent these studies only includes data for
one specific year. A regular monitoring of the progress of an urban circular economy does not
seem possible on this basis of data avialability, but even with high effort only an annual exam-
ination is possible. In addition, these comprehensive indicators are also a prerequisite for the
compilation of further indicators such as local recycling rates.
The different methods, data availability, time periods and spatial system boundaries lead to
very different data on the material consumption of cities (see Table 3). Therefore, no temporal
development (e.g. Lisbon) can be derived from these different studies and no benchmark of
the cities among themselves can be made. Rather, the results once again underline the
methodological difficulties in determining comprehensive indicators for urban spaces that
claim to reflect urban metabolism.
5 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/indicators/monitoring-framework
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 27
Table 3: Overview of different DMC per capita results for European cities
Source: own compilation
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 28
5. Territorial specificities
The development of indicator systems at local level depends i) on the specific question that a
municipality would like to address in particular, ii) but also strongly on the availability of local
data and the willingness and capability of local authorities to provide the necessary time and
financial resources for the collection of suitable bottom-up data. The local availability of data
will not only differ both between countries but also within countries. Due to the complexity of
compiling comprehensive CE indicators (whether using bottom-up approaches and collecting
the corresponding basic data or by disaggregating national data through estimation models),
it is probably not possible for most municipalities to create this database themselves. Rather,
cooperation with external experts in the form of a joint project appears to be the more promis-
ing approach. Unfortunately, this restricts the possibility of smaller and/or poorer municipali-
ties. From a financial point of view, these cities will probably be much less able to carry out
such projects.
Compared to the national average data, the CIRCTER project has already provided some
results which show a fundamentally different dynamic of cities compared to other regions of
their country, regardless of differences between individual cities. From these differences, first
indications can be derived which specific material and waste flows in cities should be ad-
dressed as a priority by local CE activities.
The CIRCTER project estimated various Circular Economy indicators at NUTS 2 levels. At the
same time, some NUTS2 regions are territorially equivalent to the city area (or a slightly larger
metropolitan region). This mostly concerns capitals. Brussels, Prague, Berlin, Bremen, Ham-
burg, Madrid, Vienna, Lisbon and Manchester have been identified as NUTS2 regions and
representing cities at the same time. London is spread over at least 2 NUTS2 regions (Inner
London) or even 5 if Outer London is included.
In the following, the CIRCTER indicators (see Table 4) for these cities are presented in rela-
tion to their national averages resulting from the NUTS2 results in CIRCTER. The national
DMC averages from CIRCTER correspond quite closely to the national indicators published
by Eurostat.
It is striking that the Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) per capita and its subcategories
in cities are significantly lower than the national average. This corresponds with the CIRCTER
results, where urban regions (regions with dominant cities, but also their hinterland) generate
less input per capita than rural regions. These can be partly explained by the very low domes-
tic extraction used (DEU) in urban areas. There will still be some extraction in urban areas via
gardening or farms within the cities and also possibly some clay, sand and gravel pits. But
this is likely to be negligible in most cities. Accordingly, in CIRCTER no domestic extraction
was estimated for most of regions that are also cities.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 29
Table 4: CIRCTER Input indicators for Cities and the national average (data for 2014)
DMC in t per cap
DMC biomass in t per cap
DMC metal ores in t per cap
DMC construction in t per cap
DEU in t per cap
Region de Bruxelles-Capitale
4,53 1,92 0,01 3,11 0,00
Belgium 14,41 4,89 0,47 5,88 9,35
Praha 8,50 1,26 0,02 4,80 0,00
Czech Republic 15,15 2,20 0,44 6,83 14,92
Berlin 4,88 1,83 0,04 3,01 0,00
Bremen 8,49 3,19 0,41 4,27 0,00
Hamburg 9,11 1,98 0,20 4,03 0,00
Germany 18,12 4,15 0,60 7,45 14,93
Comunidad de Madrid
5,22 1,60 0,06 2,31 2,37
Spain 9,54 3,20 0,58 4,29 8,63
Wien 5,40 2,25 0,01 4,30 0,00
Austria 22,65 5,56 0,88 12,99 18,88
Área Metropolitana de Lisboa
8,50 1,69 0,04 6,15 3,83
Portugal 17,48 3,68 1,65 10,16 16,51
Greater Manchester
4,86 2,52 0,02 2,16 2,56
United Kingdom 10,51 2,93 0,34 4,05 9,38
In addition to the lack of domestic extraction used, lower DMC values per capita in cities can
be explained by a more efficient use of buildings and infrastructure, which is a major driver of
material consumption. The share of multi-storey buildings is significantly higher in cities and
thus provides lower material quantities per newly built square meter of living space. Infrastruc-
tures such as water and wastewater pipelines are used by significantly more people per km
than in rural areas. The same applies to road infrastructure.
Cities located on coasts or large rivers have often grown because of their function as a hub
for goods. Therefore, in cities like Rotterdam, Hamburg or Amsterdam there is a big differ-
ence between measuring the material input of a city using the indicator DMC or the Direct
Material Input (DMI). In the literature, this is referred to as the Rotterdam effect, when the DMI
are increased by imports that actually only cross the urban area. At the national level, this
effect can only be measured in a few smaller countries with important ports such as the Neth-
erlands.
If one compares the different waste indicators determined in CIRCTER (see Table 5), it is
noticeable that, depending on the indicator, different behaviour patterns can be identified
compared to the national average. The differences thus illustrate for which individual waste
fractions cities apparently produce larger quantities than the rest of the country and for which
waste streams exactly the opposite is the case.
At the same time, some waste indicators do not differ at all from the national average. For
example, the amount of total waste excluding major mineral waste per capita. Nor are there
any significant differences in the amount of household waste per capita. However, cities rec-
ord significantly higher quantities of food waste per capita than the national average. This
may be due to a better collection schemes of food waste in urban areas, but also to the lack
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 30
of the possibility of composting it in one's own garden or feed it in one's own animal husband-
ry for one's own needs, as is still frequently the case in rural areas. The higher quantities of
plastic waste in cities can probably be partly explained by the corresponding consumption
behaviour in cities. However, there might also be a more separated collection of different
waste stream in urban areas, which enables a larger amount of collected plastic waste and
thus increases the per capita value compared to the national average.
Sectoral waste streams also differ between cities and their national average. This is not sur-
prising for agricultural waste and waste from the mining and quarrying sectors. What is sur-
prising, however, is the sometimes high amount of mineral waste from construction activities.
There is a contradiction between the lower quantities on the material input for construction in
cities and the high level of mineral waste generated by construction activities. It can be ruled
out that the construction activities in cities are more waste-intensive as in other parts of the
country. However, above-average construction activity in metropol regions such as Berlin,
which could explain higher quantities of construction waste, would also have to be reflected
on the input side.
Table 5: Waste Indicators used in CIRCTER (in kg per capita)
Total Waste1)
House-hold Waste
Food Waste WEEE
Agri-culture NACE Waste
Mining and Quarring Waste
Manu-facturing Waste
Mineral and solidified Waste2
Plastic Waste
Region de Bruxelles-Capitale
2.623 445 803 10,43 0,05 1,02 176 822 157
Belgium 2.974 483 565 10,10 26,64 6,50 975 1.093 103
Praha 1.415 308 276 7,21 0,50 9,12 103 1.545 58
Czech Republic
1.113 311 128 5,58 12,15 24,76 408 862 32,68
Berlin 1.661 430 335 9,01 0,00 0,15 147 1.939 37,09
Bremen 2.200 424 314 19,10 0,04 0,00 140 378 8,48
Hamburg 1.768 451 312 11,83 0,35 7,56 245 976 30,89
Germany 1.892 452 225 8,59 5,45 93,08 599 2.048 25,68
Comunidad de Madrid
1.369 382 379 4,63 1,01 29,99 235 640 43,61
Spain 1.336 425 162 3,61 82,40 424,03 182 235 11,88
Wien 1.817 514 486 9,08 0,07 0,07 179 4.498 65,98
Austria 1.864 472 282 9,10 11,45 4,22 515 3.756 32,97
Área Metro-politana de Lisboa
1.285 471 200 5,44 0,24 1,39 83 108 40,85
Portugal 1.113 464 85 5,15 4,81 24,05 124 72 16,55
Greater Manchester
1.754 483 330 7,63 0,03 16,43 139 2.072 37,38
United Kingdom
1.521 506 243 7,94 12,27 1.034,60 117 1.616 28,24
(1) excluding major mineral waste (2) generated by construction activities
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 31
6. Conclusions
The analysis of potential CE indicators at city level in this report has highlighted that the es-
tablishment of such an indicator set is rather a technical challenge but requires various stra-
tegic decisions on circular economy transitions. Measuring progress towards circularity re-
quires as a crucial first step an explicit understanding of the objectives and the rationality of a
circular economy – otherwise the development of indicators as well as monitoring these indi-
cators might completely overlook the actual relevant trends and developments.
A necessary part of such a discussion is a specific spatial perspective on urban circularity:
Circular economy as a guiding principle could lead to completely different structures if imple-
mented on a city district, a municipal or a regional level. Also the completely different frame-
work conditions e.g. with regard to waste generation, waste treatment infrastructure or com-
position of materials should be taken into account at least for the interpretation of urban CE
indicators.
The discussion of data availability for comprehensive CE indicators at city level clearly high-
lights that existing monitoring systems and indicators as e.g. established by the European
Commission have a clear focus on a national perspective and have important limitations to
properly capture circular economy processes at city level. If cities are actually seen as one of
the key actors in this area and especially circular innovations are expected to be developed
and implemented in front runner cities, more emphasis should be put on enabling cities to
monitor and steer such development. Currently there is a clear trade-off between the compre-
hensiveness of urban CE indicator sets and often prohibitive costs and necessary efforts to
gather data and to make them comparable on a European level. It can be seen as one of the
key outcomes of the CIRCTER project that national CE indicators only poorly reflect the broad
variety and complexity of circular transformations on the regional as well as municipal level.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 32
7. References
Alaerts, L., Van Acker, K., Rousseau, S., De Jaeger, S., Morag, G., Dewulf, J., De Meester,
S., Van Passel, S., Compernolle, T.,Bachus, K., Vrancken, K., Eyckmans, J. (2018):
Towards a circular economy monitor for Flanders: a conceptual basis - Conclusions of
stakeholder workshop June 27, 2018, online available on: https://vlaanderen-
circu-
lair.be/src/Frontend/Files/userfiles/files/Towards%20a%20CE%20monitor%20for%20Fla
nders.pdf
Barles, S. (2009): Urban metabolism of Paris and its region. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
13(6), 898–913.
Beloin-Saint-Pierre, D.,Rugani, B., Lasvaux, S., Mailhac, A., Popovic, E., Sibiude, G., Benet-
to, E., Schiopu, N. (2017): A review of urban metabolism dtudies to identify key methodo-
logical choices for future harmonization and im-plementation. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion (163), pp. S223-S240.
Beschaffungsamt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (2012): Das zentrale Portal für na-
chhaltige Beschaffung öffentlicher Auftraggeber, online available on:
http://www.nachhaltige-beschaffung.info/DE/Home/home_node.html.
Clapp, J. (2001): Toxic exports: The transfer of hazardous wastes from rich to poor countries.
Cornell University Press.
Duarte, A. (2016): Analysis of the urban metabolism of European metropolitan areas. Master
Thesis Tecnico Lisbon.
European Environment Agency (2015): More from less — material resource efficiency in Eu-
rope - 2015 overview of policies, instruments and targets in 32 countries, online available
on: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/more-from-less
European Environment Agency (2017) Waste prevention in Europe — policies, status and
trends in reuse in 2017, URL: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/waste-prevention-
in-europe-2017
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017): Cities in the circular economy an initial exploration, online
available on:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Cities-in-the-
CE_An-Initial-Exploration.pdf
ESPON (2019): CIRCTER – Circular Economy and Territorial Consequences, Final Report
(Main Report and Annex 7). Available at: https://www.espon.eu/circular-economy
European Commission (2015): Communication from the commission to the European parlia-
ment, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of
the regions - Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, online avail-
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 33
able on: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614&from=EN
European Week of Waste Reduction (n.d.): Die Europäische Woche der Abfallvermeidung,
online available on http://www.ewwr.eu/de
Eurostat (2017): Tables on waste electrical and electronic equipment by type of treatment.
Fikar, P. (2009): Energy metabolism of the Prague city, In: Presented at ConAccount 2008.
Forkes, J. (2007): Nitrogen balance for the urban food metabolism of Toronto, Canada. Re-
sources, Conservation, Recycling (52), pp. 74-94.
Haberl, H. (2001): The energetic metabolism of socities: Part II: empirical exapmples. Journal
of Industrial ecology (5), pp. 71-88.
Hammer, M., Giljium, S. (2006): Materialflussanalysen der Regionen Hamburg, Wien, Leipzig.
NEDS Working Papers. Hamburg.
Hillman, T., Ramaswami, A. (2010): Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use
benchmarks for eight US. Cities. Environmental Science and Technology (44), pp. 1902-
1910.
Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M. & Rosado, L. (2018): Circular economy: From review of theo-
ries and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 135 (February 2017), 190–201.
Kirchherr (2017): Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. & Seppälä, J. (2018a): Circular Economy: The Concept and
its Limitations. Ecological Economics, 143(January), 37–46.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. & Birkie, S. E. (2018b): Circular economy as an essen-
tially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552.
Krausmann, F. (2013): A city and its hinterland: Vienna’s energy metabolism 1800-2006. In:
Singh, S.J., Haberl, H., Chertow, M., Nirtl, M., Schmid, M. (Eds.): Long term socio-
ecological research. Human- Environment interactions. Springer. pp. 247-268.
Kristenen, P. (2004): The DPSIR Framework. Paper presented at the 27-29 September 2004
workshop on a comprehensive/detailed assessment of the vulnerability of water re-
sources to environmental change in Africa using river basin approach. UNEP Headquar-
terts, Nairobi, Kenya.
"Material Economics (n.d.): The Circular Economy - A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation -
Transformative innovation for prosperous and low-carbon industry, online available on:
https://europeanclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MATERIAL-ECONOMICS-
CIRCULAR-ECONOMY-WEBB-SMALL2.pdf"
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 34
Merli, R., Preziosi, M. & Acampora, A. (2018): How do scholars ap-proach the circular econ-
omy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 703–722.
Niza, S., Rosado, L., Ferrão, P (2009): Urban Metabolism – Methodological Advances in Ur-
ban Material Flow Accounting based on the Lisbon Case Study. Journal of Industrial
Ecology (13), pp- 384-405
O’Brien, M., Doranova, A., Kably, N., Kong, A., M., Kern, O., Giljum, S., Gözet, B. (2018):
Eco-Innovation Observatory - Biannual Report 2018, online available on:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/sites/ecoap_stayconnected/files/documents/eio_
report_2018.pdf
Pina, A., Ferrão, P., Ferreira, D., Santos, L., Monit, M., Rodrigues, J., Niza, S. (2015): The
physical structure of urban economies – comparative assessment. Technology Forecast-
ing &Social Change
Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., Hanemaaijer, A. (2017): Circular economy: measuring
innovation in the product chain. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The
Hague. Available online via http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/circular
Prendeville, S., Cherim, E. & Bocken, N. (2018): Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transi-
tion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 171–194.
Rosado, L., Niza, S., Ferrão, P. (2013): A material flow accounting casestudy of the Lisbon
Metropolitan Area using the urban metabolism analyst model. Journal of Industrial Ecol-
ogy (18), pp. 84-101.
Rosado, L., Kalmykova, Y., Patricio, J. (2016): Urban metabolism profioles. An empirical
analysis of the material flow characteristics of three metropolitan areas in Sweden. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production. (126), pp. 206-217.
Sastre, S., Carpintero, O., Lomas, P. (2015): Regional Material Flow Accounting and Envi-
ronmental Pressures: the Spanish Case. Environmental Science&Technology (49), pp.
2262-2269
Sterr, T. & Ott, T. (2004): The industrial region as a promising unit for eco-industrial develop-
ment - Reflections, practical experience and establishment of innovative instruments to
support industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(8-10), 947– 965.
UNEP (2017): Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications. A report of the In-
ternational Resource Panel. Ekins, P., Hughes, N., et al., online available on:
https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/resource_e
fficiency_report_march_2017_web_res.pdf
Velis, C. A. (2015): Circular economy and global secondary material supply chains. Waste
Management and Research, 33(5), 389–391.
ESPON / CIRCTER / final report / Annex 10 35
von Gries, N., Wilts, H., Meissner, M. (2017): Zwischenbericht - Schaffung einer Datenbasis
zur Erfassung der Mengen von in Deutschland wiederverwendeten Produkten, online
available on:
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1968/publikationen/2017-01-
17_texte_04-2017_zwischenbericht_mengen-wiederverwendete-produkte_v2.pdf
Voskamp, I., Stremke, S., Spiller, M., Perotti, D. Hoek, J., Rijnaarts, H. (2016): Enhanced
Performance of the Euro-stat Method for Comprehensive Assessment of Urban Metabo-
lism – A Material Flow Analysis of Amsterdam. Journal of Induszrial Ecology.
Wilts, H., Berg, H. (2017): The digital circular economy: Can the digital transformation pave
the way for resource ¬efficient materials cycles?, online available on:
https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/6978/file/6978_Wilts.pdf
Wolman, A. (1965): The Urban Metabolism of Cities. Scientific American, pp. 156-175.
ESPON 2020 – More information
ESPON EGTC 4 rue Erasme, L-1468 Luxembourg - Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Phone: +352 20 600 280 Email: [email protected] www.espon.eu, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube
The ESPON EGTC is the Single Beneficiary of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation Programme. The Single Operation within the programme is implemented by the ESPON EGTC and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the EU Member States and the Partner States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.